Drumwaster's rants

Politically-based rants and raves, with a little humor attached.
Comments and criticism welcomed.

Saturday, April 26, 2003

Deep into the Garage Sale Mode this morning, the wife wants me to sell my special computer desk chair. This is a green leather swivel chair with tilt capability and lumbar support, and cost almost $200 when she first bought it for me. It is quite possibly the most comfortable chair I have ever owned, and she is just in that zone where I have to be careful or she'll sell my breakfast dishes right out from under my fork, then sell the fork.

I gotta go, folks. She's running to the bank to get change, so I gotta watch the merchandise. I hate how people show up to a garage sale first thing in the freaking morning, but one item - for about a dollar, if you're lucky - and then present a twenty dollar bill, and expect you to make change. That early in the morning, I'm lucky if I can remember how to count, but they want to take every single dollar bill I have, leaving me with no way to make change for the next person in line, who is going to do exactly the same thing.

Friday, April 25, 2003

Wow. Color me gobsmacked. (What color would that be, anyway?)

Yesterday, at 2:42 pm (PDT), I had my 4,000th visitor. This evening, a few minutes ago, at 6:07 pm (PDT), I had my 4,100th.

That's 100 visitors in an elapsed period of 25 hours, and 25 minutes. I can't see any particular major site that gave me the Blogolanche (it may be about 5 minutes worth of traffic for Glenn Reynolds over at Insta-Pundit, but it's a lot for me!). Even though Tim Blair was kind enough to leave an approving comment after the blatant cut-n-paste from his site, he didn't mention me on his (I'm not asking, Tim, I was just trying to figure it out while "typing out loud") so that isn't it.

I want you all to know that you guys just rock. Thanks for coming by.

(UPDATE: It turns out that Glenn actually only needs about 2 1/2 minutes to get that many visitors (at almost 2,400/hr.), not the five minutes I thought. I feel really small now. Thanks, Glenn.)

Well, a brief thing on NAFTA. I'm all for free trade, and I've never known trade to lead to a war. Most trading tends to swap some cultural traits, too.

Briefly, thus: NAFTA is short for North American Free Trade Agreement, and it took effect almost a decade ago. It was one of the first things Bill Clinton did when he took office. I'm not so sure that we should be allowing these trucks across uninspected. The second immediate concern I remember was the utterly differing health standards regarding Mexican fruit. I remember whole seasons of strawberries that were causing people to get sick.

But once those had ironed themselves out, then jobs should move to where they are most efficiently handled.

I know that this might conflict with some people's view, but let me spell out the major provisions (as explained by the World Almanac):

Agriculture - Tariffs on all farm products are to be eliminated over 15 years. Domestic price-support systems may continue provided they do not distort trade.

Automobiles - After eight years, at least 5/8 (62.5%) of an automobile's value must have been produced in North America for it to qualify for duty-free status. Tariffs are to be phased out over ten years.

Banking - U.S. and Canadian banks may acquire Mexican commercial banks accounting for as much as 8% of the industry's capital. All limits on ownership end in 2004.

Disputes - Special judges have jurisdiction to resolve disagreements within strict timetables.

Energy - Mexico continues to bar foreign ownership of its oil fields but, starting in 2004, U.S. and Canadian companies can bid on contracts offered by Mexican oil and electricity monopolies.

Environment - NAFTA cannot override national and state environmental, health, or safety laws.

Immigration - All three countries must ease restrictions on the movement of business executives and professionals.

Tariffs - Tariffs on 10,000 customs goods are to be eliminated over 15 years. One-half of U.S. exports to Mexico are to be considered duty-free within five years.

Textiles - A "rule of origin" provision requires most garments to be made from yarn and fabric that has been produced in North America. Most tariffs are to be phased out over five years.

Trucking - Trucks were to have free access on cross-border routes and throughout the three countries by 1999, but the U.S. continued to impose restrictions on Mexican trucks. On February 6, 2001, an arbitration panel ruled that the U.S. restrictions were in violation of NAFTA. President Bush pledged to work with Congress to bring the U.S. into compliance with NAFTA.

So we have increased trade across the borders, and my main problem is the smuggling of people ("undocumented immigrants" if we're speaking politely, "illegal aliens" if we're speaking truthfully) and drugs. These illegals are here to use up health care resources and then disappear back into the society that shields them. Other illegals (who aren't so interested in finding work) also make it across the border with even more nefarious goals in mind.

As for the drugs, the smugglers are getting more and more clever. They have even issued contracts on the lives of the really efficient drug-sniffing dogs. But that's another issue that existed long before NAFTA. I'm also struck by the fact that Clinton didn't do anything about that last point. They had been violating the treay for going on seven years, and about two weeks after Bush takes the Oath, he gets yet another Clinton failure laid in his lap. But we shall see. Maybe since Mexico took the anti-war position (One recent quote by Jay Leno says it best: "Mexican President Vicente Fox said the United States had no business invading Iraq and called for the U.S. to withdraw and go home. This hurts. If there's one thing for which Mexicans are well respected, it's their belief in the sanctity of borders." - tip o' the hat to American Realpolitik), maybe we can show them a little of the french twist via a mini-boycott. Cinco de Mayo is coming up, so don't celebrate it. Have a hamburger, instead.

I can't be sure whether it is good or bad, but allowing for unrestricted access across the border is just inviting disaster, of one sort or another. Either in an overwhelming drug boom or in a terrorist-inspired real boom. Either way, it couldn't be helpful to any of the three countries.

If Mexico and Canada were to tighten up their borders and actually enforce their laws, and pay attention to who is coming into their country (as closely as we do here in the US nowadays), then I wouldn't have a problem with NAFTA.

I know that it's probably not what LL wanted me to say, but companies are in this market to make a profit. If the jobs go elsewhere, then people will go where the jobs are. If that means that more Mexicans stay in Mexico for all those blue collar jobs, then I'm cool with it. If a company folds up because it can't pay its American workers, when it could have moved to Mexico and kept going, but providing jobs in North America, rather than just say, Kentucky, then realize that NAFTA is designed to benefit the entire continent, not just one nation.

Send any hate mail to your Congressional Representatives, but remember that it is now the Law of the Land, with its tenth anniversary coming up next January 1st. I'm a big picture kinda guy, rather than the local picture. That may make me seem heartless, but it's who I am. Hope this helps.

God morning, I'm not going to be doing much today, because I have to go clean out the garage in preparation for a garage sale we're planning on having tomorrow (if the pleasant weather holds). We have a couch to move to the side, and I have to sweep up and make a few posterboard signs. Just simple stuff, and It ought to be a long and tiring day. For me anyway.

I have a new Loyal Reader LL, who is suggesting that I blog and rant about NAFTA. While I'm sure that it may not be the best thing for our nation, I'm not so sure that free trade s a bad thing either, so while I hear a lot of anecdotes about lost jobs here and production moved to Canada (especially sugar consuming companies like candy makers) or Mexico (auto makers and other blue-collar production jobs), I'm not familiar enough with the nuts and bolts to find out why it is a good thing or a bad thing.

I also don't let H. Ross Perot decide my opinion on policy, and I remember his sound bite from the '96 election ("Vast Sucking Sound"), so let me think about it, and try and figure out how it should be changed, if at all.

We also caught the Iraqi equivalent of the Secretary of State, Tariq Aziz, and the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, Farouk Hijazi. Pretty soon, we will have enough for a game of bridge...

Oh, just under a month until my birthday, and I passed 4,000 visitors yesterday (with a visitor from Illinois, I think). I'm expecting to pass the 5K mark before the middle of May. Not bad for some schlub who just decided to start typing one afternoon because he saw how much fun others were having.

You are the ones who decide how successful I become, and all thanks goes to you. So thank you all. Come back again, and often.

Thursday, April 24, 2003

The Dixie Twits are back on the cover of a magazine to proclaim their patriotism. They decided to become the Country Music world's version of Courtney Love, or Madonna, or Christina Aguilera.

They still don't get it. Their fan base is not upset because of their lack of public nakedness. They are upset because they have chosen to badmouth the President about the war while performing for a foreign audience. If they really believed it, they should have the guts (I can't say "balls" about a group that calls themselves "Chicks") to say so right here at home. If they really don't believe it, then they are nothing more than political whores who were playing the political punchline in a crowd who already felt that way, for doing something on the moral equivalent of shouting, "You guys here in [Insert Name of Town Here] really rock!!"

But the quickest way to avoid the hassle of one scandal is to start another one, and the easiest way to do that is to push the buttons of your core fan base in another way. These are the same fans who believe in God, Country, Guns, and President, and would much rather be strung up to a whipping post than appear in public naked.

What they don't realize is that their fan base isn't likely to forget so quickly. The nation has become quite a bit more cynical over the past year regarding being bitch-slapped by who we had been considering friends, only to realize how treacherous they have actually been. Same with The Dixie Chicks. And Hollywood.

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

I have a pet peeve I want to air. I just went through a service call to one of our local utilities, and went through the whole "For customer service to your home, press '1'. If you're calling about customer service to your business, press '2'. If you are sick and tired of listening to our Musak, press '9'.", and no matter which choices you make, and no matter how specific the choices are, you still have to explain it to the person who finally answers the phone, start to finish.

My question, what was the purpose of this rigamarole? I have been in these phone systems that have had me enter my 16-digit account number, home telephone number (another ten digits, "area code first"), and specify, through menu choices, that it was 1) a residence; 2) that I was using a Windows 98 Operating System; 3) that I had DSL; and 4) (since I had already done this before) acknowledge that none of the pre-recorded messages were helpful. That was just to get me to a living tech support person who asked for a problem resolution number (another eight digits), and then ask, "How can we help you?"

I'd love to hear from people who have run into these same kind of illogical wastes of time that don't do anything but see how long we will sit and push buttons before we start wanting to rip the phone out of the wall and throw it out the window. Give me your worst horror stories (to the e-mail address on the left), and I'll publish the very best... or worst, as the case may be. If you would prefer to use a screen name or other pseudonym, just include it along with your entry, m'kay? No third hand stuff, though... I'm not looking for Urban Legends.

Yesterday's post on the First Amendment, combined with what someone had said on another blog (I think it was over at Lee's), made me realize that our Founding Fathers had done their damnedest to make sure that our Government would remain forever scared of the citizenry.

In our form of Government, that Government derives its power to rule from the People. And the People should have the ability to take it back, if they were to make the collective choice to do so, even to the point of armed rebellion. But the Founding Fathers made sure that if the Federal Government got so aggressively overbearing with its regulations and taxation, that the people would have the right to get together and figure out ways to change it. All with the blessings of the Founding Fathers and the protection of the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment gives us the right to worship where we want (or not), to say (and write) what we want, to meet up with those who are like-minded, and to ask the Government to try and fix itself first. The Second guarantees that if it comes down to fighting in the streets, the average citizen will be able to pick sides and join in. The Third means that loyalties won't be divided (by having a guest in your home be there at the behest of the Government). The Fourth boils down to making sure that your stuff isn't bothered so long as you obey the laws. The Fifth means that you don't have to incriminate yourself and you only get tried once for any accusation.

You see what I mean? You can protest against the Government and demand that they fix the problem. You can meet up with people who share your beliefs. You can announce your point of view in any venue you want. You can own enough weaponry to protect yourself or fight against the Government. You won't have to be worried about having your doors kicked in just because you are protesting against the Government (so long as you obey the laws).

And if you do get arrested, the burden of proof lies entirely on the side of the Government prosecutors to prove your guilt to twelve citizens "beyond a reasonable doubt". Those twelve have to agree on your guilt, so if one person among them believes in your innocence and refuses to budge, you have a 'hung jury', and the chances are better than even that many prosecutors will just give up at that point. Some will keep trying, but with the same set of facts, and the chance of the same result, it's just a longer and more drawn out version of the same song...

Robert Heinlein once wrote, "In any mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master'." The Bill of Rights is the ultimate guarantee of our power, and the means to take it back, if need be.

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

I never got my reminder e-mail last night, but I went looking for this week's "This-or-That Tuesday" questions all on my own.

So... For your amusement, I present the "What is" version of our game.

What Is...

1. Yummier: Chocolate ice cream or strawberry cheesecake? Chocolate ice cream, without question.2. Better to watch on TV: Movies or sports? Usually movies, but if the wife isn't home, and it looks like a good baseball game, who knows?3. A better web browser: MSIE or Netscape (or tell us your own favorite!) I use Internet Explorer. I flirted briefly with Mozilla, but I couldn't get it to work properly, so I went back to IE.4. A better way to travel: Automobile or bus/train? I'd rather drive myself, but it'd be fun to catch a train across the country.5. Your preferred camera: Digital or film? I'd love a digital camera, but money has limited our wish list.6. A Cooler Vehicle: Motorcycle or sports car? Sports car.7. More fun: Video games or board games? Video games, but board games can be fun, too.8. Sexier: A perfect body or an intelligent mind? Intelligent mind, but I have an obvious bias, since my body is busy breaking down around me.9. A stinkier smell: Skunk or gasoline (petrol)? There are MUCH worse smells that either of those, but of the two, skunk.10. Thought-provoking question of the week: What is more important to you: making a ton of money and being at the top of your field, or finding your soulmate and living a comfortable but not wealthy life? Being independently wealthy means being happy with what you have, not having more money than you know what to do with. And what's the point of having a comfortable life if there's no one to share it with?

You know, it has struck me that many people haven't yet figured out what the First Amendment really says, and what it really does. Some Hollyweird celebrities are upset that their fans have stopped spending money on them. The Dixie Chicks have lost several performances and have also suffered a 40% drop in sales, as a direct result of Natalie Maines saying (while performing overseas) that they were "ashamed" that President Bush was also from Texas. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were disinvited from a ceremony at the Baseball Hall of Fame and Susan was also disinvited from a Tampa Bay fundraiser, because people started saying that if Susan showed up, they would stay at home. With their checkbooks. I have been getting several contacts from corporate sponsors who have been concerned about my "boycott" (which is still going on, by the way, there just haven't been any new episodes) of any and all advertisers on "The West Wing".

These celebs have just realized that We, The People, actually have the power to choose. We can choose where to spend our money, and if people choose Clint Black over The Dixie Chicks, that is their right. If people want to avoid watching movies that star any of these celebs (such as Susan Sarandon's recent made-for-TV movie about a woman suffering from breast cancer, which had the lowest rating of all the shows on TV that evening), they have that right, and it is NOT a violation of the celeb's First Amendment Rights.

I know I went over this once before, but let's try it again. First, the exact phrasing: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's it. 45 words. No fancy language (although a few words might be slightly archaic). I wonder how many of the celebs would be able to remember all the things mentioned and covered by the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, right of petition)...

But let's step back and listen to some of the things being said by the most outspoken of these "oppressed" people, Tim Robbins. He has said that a "chill wind is blowing" which apparently reminds him of his stint in the Government Gulags (alongside Barbra Streisand) for protesting against the guy who won the election (but they're not conceding anything, even 30 months later). But since that only happened in his fevered imagination, let's look at why no one is suppressing anyone's rights.

The issue about the disinvites: They (Tim and Susan) haven't yet been able to step in front of a microphone about any subject without somehow bringing up their position against the "unilateral war of aggression" against Iraq "who had done nothing to us" (according to a TV commercial starring Susan). Susan was on a tour promoting her movie (which, as I said, was about a very brave lady who was working at the South Pole when she learned she had breast cancer, and lacking all other alternatives, ended up doing the surgical procedures on herself.) That would be a woman who has shown the courage and stamina to deserve to have a quality movie made about her experiences, but Susan still turned one interview into a polemic on the war.

The Tampa Bay charity fundraiser had been told by at least thirty people who wanted to give money but would refuse if Susan showed up and started ranting about her decidedly anti-war views. Charities need those funds, and would rather people with checkbooks show up than a controversial figure, so they said, "Thanks for everything, Susan, now go away."

That's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment Rights. Period. Because it was not Congress who did it, it was a private agency. Much like the Hall of fame disinviting Tim and Susan from the ceremony celebrating "15 Years of Bull Durham". The HoF director was a former Reagan staffer, so he must therefore be trying to suppress the speech of the left-wing. After all, he invited Ari Fleischer to come speak about something else a few weeks later, but not Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.

"Violations of First Amendment" and it must therefore all be the fault of President Bush and his administration.

Here's a clue... Even if everything they say were true (and I'm not stipulating any of it), it's still not a First Amendment violation. Private individuals and non-governmental organizations (like the HoF and charities) can control who gets to attend official functions of that group, and who gets to speak, and Congress hasn't done anything.

Tim and Susan are griping about their speech being suppressed on four different networks, and at the National Press Club, which was aired on C-SPAN. I wish I were that suppressed, I could use the publicity.

I'm just going to have to accept that this is the same group that did absolutely nothing while Klinton was bombing Kosovo and Baghdad (killing more civilians than all of our regime-changing military actions in Iraq to date). Maybe because they were too busy checking out all the cool little secrets in the White House, and bouncing on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom.

In other news, I mentioned that my birthday is coming up in about four weeks, and I've told my wife I want to get my own domain and website, and she has agreed. It may be clunky as hell at first, but the look will remain the same, except for some pictures I get to use (I've run across a shitload of stuff I wanted to show you, but couldn't, because I don't have any FTP ability with BlogSpot.

Hang in there, friends, the new website will be coming, I promise! Hopefully before Memorial Day, if I can get my act together (or get some helpful advice) by then. Good morning!

Monday, April 21, 2003

You know, I've been doing a little research into those beliefs of the Fat F*ck From Flint (as I've started referring to Michael Moore), but I had to come up with a way to do the research and documentation without actually giving him any of my money. The most obvious choice came to mind: the Public Library. So i went down late last week, and have been reading his nauseating spewings ("Stupid White Men...") a few paragraphs at a time (which is about all I can handle before needing to go off and wash my hands.

I've learned that he blames Dubya for the California Power Crisis, the price of gasoline, an international trading pact between Russia and China, the collapse of the DOTCom stock market bubble, layoffs across the country, the impossibility of catching a connecting flight out of Detroit, all those touch-tone phone directories ("If you want Customer Service, touch '4'."), the over whelming complexity of the taxation system (so that many families are required to work two jobs - like the need for that started out of the blue in November, 2000), NAFTA, and (using a word which was to become popular to those on the left) "unilaterally" withdrawing from an ABM Treaty (the fact that the only other signatory nation doesn't exist anymore couldn't have anything to do with it, though, could it?).

But a little later on in the book, he is ranting about how Nature is killing off men (a statistical claim of questionable veracity, but I'll stipulate it, just for the sake of argument). The point he makes is that since men have been in charge, and now that we're suddenly "killing off Nature", she is responding by killing off the species that is doing all the harm. And how women have had the vote for more than 80 years, but they keep electing men as President.

But on page 151, he gives a list of "Mike's Fantasy List of Women Presidents":

President Cynthia McKinney (He calls her "the best person in Congress today") - this is the "woman" that blamed her re-election defeat on the JEWS, after she blamed 9/11 on the JEWS, and her constituents thought it was a bit much.

President Hillary Clinton (but only if he gets to be invited for "sleepovers") - Vince Foster? Rose Law Firm? Vote buying among the Hasidic community in NY? Marc Rich pardon? Do any of these ring a bell, Hillary?

President Oprah (Winfrey) (with "Dr. Phil" as her fireside chat adviser) - "Saddam, how did it feel when you had those sanctions imposed?"

President Leigh Taylor-Young (the first naked woman he ever saw - Mike says that's enough reason to make her President.)

President Sherry Lansing (former head of Paramount, because she gave him a role once. As Mike says, 'Nuff said.)

'Nuff said, indeed, Mike. I'm trying to track down a free copy of Bowling for Columbine. Some dingbats out there have claimed that because I haven't watched the whole think in one fell swoop, start-to-finish, that I am not allowed to point out all the inherent flaws, falsehoods, and flat-out lies. I guess that means that atheists aren't allowed to be atheists until they have read all possible religious texts cover to cover (because while one may be wrong, another might be right and utterly true). That would include the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the writings of Buddha, Confucius, and the Hindu Vitas (along with many others sacred texts, they can be found in the Sacred Text Archives, using the link in the left column.).

But until you read everything in support of your opponents position, apparently you're not allowed to disagree with him. I know, I know, a bigger load of crap I have yet to read myself, but someone had to say it sometime. I don't have to read "Mein Kampf" to know that Naziism probably isn't the best form of government, or "Das Kapital", or the "Illuminatus" trilogy (All Hail Discordia! Fnord) to understand the basics of their forms of government, and why it wouldn't work.

Neither do I have to see every frame of a film to be able to tell the difference between truth and "fictitions".

Sunday, April 20, 2003

I'm back, and I'm tired... The get-together was fun, since they combined it with a double birthday party for two of the grandkids. It was also fun watching the Lakers clobber the Timberwolves. However, the traffic wasn't much fun, and the 70+miles each way also sucked, because I get so stiff after longer trips nowadays...

Just a brief entry this morning to wish you all a Happy Easter. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Wiccan, what have you, this remains one of the Holy Days for two of the world's major religions, and I hope that if you are celebrating this day, that it be a pleasant and rewarding one for you and all those you care about.

I may have mentioned this, but we're going to go to an afternoon get-together with all of the generations, so it'll be a lot of driving through SoCal traffic. If we're lucky, we might make it back here in time to catch the evening TV shows.

I missed "Enterprise" on Wednesday, so I'll have to catch it this evening. If you've never seen it, it is a series that serves as a kind of Pre-quel for Star Trek, and isn't have bad, even if I keep expecting Al to pop up and talk about what Ziggy says is the best plan... (Extra points towards the No-Prize if you have any clue as to what I'm talking about.)

Anyhow, we have some preps to take care of and the wife is assigning me my morning tasks, so Happy Easter, or Happy Belated Solstice, or Happy Passover (this upcoming Thursday, IIRC), as the case may be.